Category: Malayan Law Journal

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:      

Terence KM Chan (Bryan Goh with him)(Lim Kian Leong & Co) for the respondent.

COURT OF APPEAL (PUTRAJAYA)

Civil Procedure — Judgments and orders — Consequential orders — Whether High Court had inherent jurisdiction/power to grant consequential orders to give effect to its earlier judgment — Whether consequential orders necessary to achieve justice or prevent abuse of process of court — Whether consequential orders particularly useful in providing justice to a party faced with an opponent bent on defying whatever judgment or order pronounced by the court — Whether in such cases the court’s exercise of its inherent power to grant consequential orders did not breach the principle of functus officio or amount to altering or varying the terms of a final judgment — Whether consequential orders often necessary to ‘work out’ the initial judgment so as to give effect to it.

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:

Tan Keng Teck (Tobias Lim with him)(Lim Kian Leong & Co) for the second respondent.

HIGH COURT (SHAH ALAM) Contract — Breach — Breach of undertaking — Plaintiff argued that first defendant breached written undertaking in failing to forward title of property to plaintiff — Whether first defendant breached written undertaking — Whether first defendant caused damages to plaintiff.

Legal Profession — Duty of care — Negligence — Whether second defendant as firm of solicitors negligent in mistakenly transferred property to third defendant — Whether second defendant could not be held liable as fraudulent act of third defendant broke chain of causation.

Limitation — Accrual of cause of action — When cause of action accrued — Threat to plaintiff’s right to register charge on land — Whether plaintiff’s action statute-barred — Limitation Act 1953 ss 6, 9 & 29.

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:

Tan Keng Teck (Foo Siew Yin with him)(Lim Kian Leong & Co) for the defendant.  

HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)

Contract — Damages — Termination of contract of agency — Plaintiff insurance agent of defendant — Defendant terminated agency agreement — Whether agency agreement could be terminated pursuant to the agreement by giving 14 working days’ written notice and without having to assign any reason therefore — When plaintiff first had notice of notice to terminate — Effective date of termination — Whether agency agreement wrongfully terminated — Whether plaintiff entitled to loss of commission, loss of reputation, loss of opportunity, loss of future earnings, aggravated damages and exemplary damages.

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:

Lim Kian Leong (Alvin Oh Seong Yew, Foo Siew Yin and Goh Gin Jhen with him)(Sia Siew Mun & Co) for the respondents.

FEDERAL COURT (PUTRAJAYA) Partnership — Assignment of share in partnership — Power of attorney — Partner absolutely assigned his rights, title and interests in partnership shares to company and executed power of attorney (‘PA’) in favour of company’s director — Partner later became bankrupt — Whether absolute nature of assignment allowed assignee through the PA holder to become partner in bankrupt partner’s place in the partnership — Whether nothing in the deed of assignment or the PA allowed the assignee or PA holder to become partner — Whether fact that the other existing partners were given notice of the assignment and the PA did not mean they had in any way consented to accept assignee as partner — Whether existing partners had locus standi to sue assignee for infringing their legal rights and interests.

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:

Lim Kian Leong (Tan Wei Wei, Chris Lim Su Heng, Nur Khidmah bt Huzaisham and Colin Liew with him)(Chris Lim Su Heng) Civil Appeal Nos 02(f)-7-03 of 2016 (W) and 02(f)-8-03 of 2016 (W) for the respondent.

FEDERAL COURT (PUTRAJAYA)

Company Law — Directors — Duties — Directors’ duties to act in best interest of company in divestments company’s shareholding — Whether directors acted in breach of statutory duties as set out in s 132(1) of the Companies Act 1965 — Whether there was dishonest assistance in various breaches of duty owed — Whether there was conspiracy by lawful and/or unlawful means to injure company vide divestments — Whether there were acts or omissions that caused company to suffer loss and damage in relation to divestments — Whether directors in breach of fiduciary, statutory or common law duties — Whether directors failed to act in best interest of company — Whether such failure caused losses and damages to company.

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
Lim Kian Leong (Lui Kar Yee and Marcus Tan with him) (Lim Kian Leong & Co) for the fourth and fifth respondents

HIGH COURT

Winding up – S.223 of the Companies Act 1965 – Law on s.223 of CA1965 – Whether the Listing Exercise is made in good faith and honestly – Whether the Listing Exercise is beneficial to the general body of the creditors

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
Lim Kian Leong (CC Low with him) (Lim Kian Leong & Co) for the defendant.

HIGH COURT

Letter of Indemnity – Breach of fiduciary, statutory and common law duties – Whether TRI BOD Resolution has discharged the 2nd Defendant’s obligations under the LOI

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
Goh Gin Jhen (Tobias Lim with him) (Lim Kian Leong & Co) for the defendant.

HIGH COURT

Appeal – Law on Interference of Appellate Court – Law on Professional Negligence – Issue of retainer or the duty to honour undertakings – Duty of care for an undertaking – Turquand rule – Principle of adverse inference under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 – Burden and onus of proof

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
Lim Kian Leong & Co for the 1st defendant.

HIGH COURT

Interim Mareva Injunction pending the disposal of the Plaintiff’s suit against the Defendants: Requirements or test to be applied in considering an application for Mareva Injunction – Requirement of a good arguable case – Test of good arguable case – Liability of a Partner – Partnership Act 1961

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
Lim Kian Leong (Tan Keng Teck & Chai Jai Hui with him) (Lim Kian Leong & Co) for the 1st & 2nd defendants.

HIGH COURT

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Amendment – Re-amendment – Leave to amend amended defence and counterclaim – Whether application was made bona fide – Whether exercise of judicial discretion is dependent on particular evidence adduced in court – Whether consequence of amendment application would delay trial

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Parties – Joinder – Application to join a party by defendant – Whether non-joinder of parties would cause prejudice to defendant – Whether counterclaim could be defeated by non-joinder of party